Background: Several epidemiological studies have associated diabetes mellitus (DM) with dementia. However, neuropathological studies examining this relationship are scarce. Objectives: To identify association between DM and dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD) and Vascular Dementia (VaD) in a neuropathological study. Methods: Data were collected from the cases included in the Brain Bank of the Brazilian Aging Brain Study Group between 2004 and 2011. Cases were divided into 2 groups: without DM (G1) and with DM (G2). Clinical diagnosis of dementia was determined by the scores ≥ 1.0 in the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and ≥ 3.42 in the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Immunohistochemistry was used for the neuropathological diagnosis. Mann-Whitney test and multiple linear regression were applied to quantitative variables, and multiple logistic regression and χ2 test for categorical ones. Results: Total sample included 829 subjects, divided in G1 = 605 (73%) and G2 = 224 (27%). DM increased the risk for dementia (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.16, p = 0.03) and hyaline arteriolosclerosis (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1, 11 to 2.49, p = 0.01) whereas there was no association of DM with neuritic plaques (p = 0.76), neurofibrillary tangles (p = 0.93) and infarct group (p = 0.56) after adjustment for demographic variables and vascular risk factors. Conclusion: DM is a risk factor for dementia probably due to small vessel disease, independently of the neuropathological cause.
Background:Our hospital has 4 Rheumatologists and is in charge of 425.000 inhabitants (1 rheumatologist per 106.250 inhabitants). In November 2017, there were 503 referrals from primary care waiting for a first visit with the rheumatologist. Given the impossibility of covering this number of waiting patients through normal operation, it was decided to implement a rapid access polyclinic that started in December of 2017.Objectives:To evaluate the effectiveness of a triage system in a center with high demand for care.Methods:Patients referred by the general practitioner were evaluated by a senior rheumatologist in a 10-minute consultation using a predefined interrogation, expanded case-by-case based on the criteria of each rheumatologist. According to the results of the interview, the situation of the patient was categorized into: urgent, normal rheumatology control or control in primary care. For urgent consultations, an early control polyclinic was created to evaluate these patients within the following 15 days. The usual consultations entered into the usual scheduling system. The pathologies that were considered to require control in primary care were assigned to a coordination polyclinic where the patients were evaluated by an internist, in charge of confirming the diagnosis, educating the patient, and, if applicable, refer to primary care. No patient was discharged immediately after the triage. We report the data of the first 136 patients.Results:The waiting time was reduced from a median of 275 days (IQR 66-591) to 46.5 (23-140). Refer to table 1 for full results. In 52.2% of referred patients the suspicion of a chronic autoimmune or inflammatory disease was described in the referral note. In these patients, when comparing with patients whose referral notes did not refer to an inflammatory or autoimmune disease, the waiting time for triage was significantly shorter, the percentage of patients who were discharged from rheumatology was significantly lower, and the percentage of patients in whom a chronic autoimmune or inflammatory disease was confirmed in the first control was significantly higher.Table 1All patientsOnly those with suspected autoimmune or chronic inflammatory disease in referral notePatients referred for other reasons (fibromyalgia, arthralgia, myalgia, osteoporosis, etc.)pNumber (%)136 (100)71 (52.2)65 (47.8)NAAge,mean years (SD)51.8 (16.3)50.7 (16.4)53.1 (16.2)NSMen, n (%)24 (17.6)15 (21.1)9 (13.8)NSTime between referral and triage, median days (IQR)46.5 (23-140)34 (15.5-124.5)54 (28-441)0,017Triage resolutionUrgent control, n (%)92 (67.6)55 (77.5)37 (56.9)0,011Normal Control, n (%)25 (18.4)12 (16.9)13 (20)NSPrimary care coordination, n (%)19 (14)4 (5.6)15 (23.1)0,003Time between triage and first control, median days (IQR)21 (14-42)21 (12.5-41)26 (21-42)NSFirst control resolution, n (%)96 (70.6)54 (76.1)42 (64.6)NSDiagnosis confirmation, n (%)37 (38.5)26 (48.1)11 (16.9)0,028Continue control, n (%)41 (42.7)26 (48.1)15 (23.1)NSDischarge to primary care, n (%)18 (18.8)2 (3.7)16 (24.6)<0,001SD: standard deviation; n: number; IQR: Interquartile rangeConclusion:We consider this strategy as successful in reducing care times and identifying patients who require an early start of treatment and close control. Referral notes from primary care were generally adequate to identify patients who required to continue rheumatologist control.References:None.Disclosure of Interests:Sebastian Ibáñez Consultant of: Novartis, Paid instructor for: Bristol Myers, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Francisca Valenzuela: None declared, Oriela Martinez: None declared, Omar Valenzuela Consultant of: Bristol Myers, Paid instructor for: Bristol Myers, Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers, Abbvie, Francisco Silva Consultant of: Roche, Speakers bureau: Roche, María José Villar: None declared, María Paz Poblete: None declared, Claudia Mardones: None declared
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.